An amazing case for reducing gun ownership in America
- Thread starter Wez
- Start date
Bruddah IZ
DA
Defensive Gun Use Is More Than Shooting Bad Guys
It's hard to say exactly, but it's certainly more than many media outlets are reporting.
https://fee.org/articles/defensive-gun-use-is-more-than-shooting-bad-guys/
In a New York Times column entitled “How to Reduce Shootings,” Nicholas Kristof writes, “It is true that guns are occasionally used to stop violence. But contrary to what the National Rifle Association suggests, this is rare. One study by the Violence Policy Center found that in 2012 there were 259 justifiable homicides by a private citizen using a firearm.”
That statement grossly misleads by pretending that firearms only stop violence when they are used to kill criminals. As explained by the National Academies of Sciences in a 300+ page analysis of firearms studies, “Effective defensive gun use need not ever lead the perpetrator to be wounded or killed. Rather, to assess the benefits of self-defense, one needs to measure crime and injury averted. The particular outcome of an offender is of little relevance.”
Likewise, a 1995 paper in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology states, “This is also too serious a matter to base conclusions on silly statistics comparing the number of lives taken with guns with the number of criminals killed by victims. Killing a criminal is not a benefit to the victim, but rather a nightmare to be suffered for years afterward.”
It's hard to say exactly, but it's certainly more than many media outlets are reporting.
https://fee.org/articles/defensive-gun-use-is-more-than-shooting-bad-guys/
In a New York Times column entitled “How to Reduce Shootings,” Nicholas Kristof writes, “It is true that guns are occasionally used to stop violence. But contrary to what the National Rifle Association suggests, this is rare. One study by the Violence Policy Center found that in 2012 there were 259 justifiable homicides by a private citizen using a firearm.”
That statement grossly misleads by pretending that firearms only stop violence when they are used to kill criminals. As explained by the National Academies of Sciences in a 300+ page analysis of firearms studies, “Effective defensive gun use need not ever lead the perpetrator to be wounded or killed. Rather, to assess the benefits of self-defense, one needs to measure crime and injury averted. The particular outcome of an offender is of little relevance.”
Likewise, a 1995 paper in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology states, “This is also too serious a matter to base conclusions on silly statistics comparing the number of lives taken with guns with the number of criminals killed by victims. Killing a criminal is not a benefit to the victim, but rather a nightmare to be suffered for years afterward.”
Bruddah IZ
DA
In other words, people who use a gun for defense rarely harm (much less kill) criminals. This is because criminals often back off when they discover their targets are armed. A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons across the U.S. found that 40 percent of them had decided not to commit a crime because they “knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun.”
Contrary to Kristof’s deceitful claim, a range of credible data suggests that civilians use guns to stop violence more than 100,000 times per year.
Contrary to Kristof’s deceitful claim, a range of credible data suggests that civilians use guns to stop violence more than 100,000 times per year.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Facing the Facts
Notably, anti-gun criminologist Marvin E. Wolfgang praised this study, which was conducted by pro-gun researchers Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. In the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Wolfgang wrote:
“I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country.”
“Nonetheless, the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it.”
“The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology.”
Other credible studies provide evidence that defensive gun uses are much more common than Kristof leads his readers to believe.
Notably, anti-gun criminologist Marvin E. Wolfgang praised this study, which was conducted by pro-gun researchers Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. In the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Wolfgang wrote:
“I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country.”
“Nonetheless, the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it.”
“The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology.”
Other credible studies provide evidence that defensive gun uses are much more common than Kristof leads his readers to believe.
Bruddah IZ
DA
In 2013, President Obama ordered the Department of Health and Human Services and CDC to “conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it.” In response, the CDC asked the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council to “convene a committee of experts to develop a potential research agenda focusing on the public health aspects of firearm-related violence...” This committee studied the issue of defensive gun use and reported:
“Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed…”
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million…”
“Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed…”
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million…”
Bruddah IZ
DA
Hüsker Dü
DA
. . . and I know how you people want anything but. You people just don't do "genuine".
Bruddah IZ
DA
Now if we can just come up with a plan to mobilize national guardsman in the most high risk states like FL, that has no waiting period for rifle sales we would be addressing the problem directly. Peace through superior fire power.
Bruddah IZ
DA
I just did.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Defensive Gun Use Is More Than Shooting Bad Guys
It's hard to say exactly, but it's certainly more than many media outlets are reporting.
https://fee.org/articles/defensive-gun-use-is-more-than-shooting-bad-guys/
In a New York Times column entitled “How to Reduce Shootings,” Nicholas Kristof writes, “It is true that guns are occasionally used to stop violence. But contrary to what the National Rifle Association suggests, this is rare. One study by the Violence Policy Center found that in 2012 there were 259 justifiable homicides by a private citizen using a firearm.”
That statement grosslymisleads by pretending that firearms only stop violence when they are used to kill criminals. As explained by the National Academies of Sciences in a 300+ page analysis of firearms studies, “Effective defensive gun use need not ever lead theperpetrator to be wounded or killed. Rather, to assess thebenefits of self-defense, one needs to measure crime andinjury averted. The particular outcome of an offender is of little relevance.”
Likewise, a 1995 paper in theJournal of Criminal Law andCriminology states, “This is also too serious a matter to base conclusions on silly statistics comparing the number of lives taken with guns with the number of criminals killed byvictims. Killing a criminal is not abenefit to the victim, but rather a nightmare to be suffered for years afterward.”
It's hard to say exactly, but it's certainly more than many media outlets are reporting.
https://fee.org/articles/defensive-gun-use-is-more-than-shooting-bad-guys/
In a New York Times column entitled “How to Reduce Shootings,” Nicholas Kristof writes, “It is true that guns are occasionally used to stop violence. But contrary to what the National Rifle Association suggests, this is rare. One study by the Violence Policy Center found that in 2012 there were 259 justifiable homicides by a private citizen using a firearm.”
That statement grosslymisleads by pretending that firearms only stop violence when they are used to kill criminals. As explained by the National Academies of Sciences in a 300+ page analysis of firearms studies, “Effective defensive gun use need not ever lead theperpetrator to be wounded or killed. Rather, to assess thebenefits of self-defense, one needs to measure crime andinjury averted. The particular outcome of an offender is of little relevance.”
Likewise, a 1995 paper in theJournal of Criminal Law andCriminology states, “This is also too serious a matter to base conclusions on silly statistics comparing the number of lives taken with guns with the number of criminals killed byvictims. Killing a criminal is not abenefit to the victim, but rather a nightmare to be suffered for years afterward.”
Wez
DA
So you cut and paste five replies?
Hüsker Dü
DA
You probably know way better than I why that is unfeasible in many ways. Do people pulled away from their livelyhoods receive full compensation for their efforts? Will we simply surround every school with National Guardsmen or just deploy a limited number? Who gives them their directions and who will give the order to use force, deadly or otherwise? Will these National Guardsmen also intervene in other school disturbances such as fights, practical jokes from rival schools or student protests?
Bruddah IZ
DA
National Guardsman serve for two weeks on Active Duty annually as a part of their contract and are fully compensated for that time as well as their 1 weekend a month obligation. Not all units do their annual training simultaneously. They could rotate at least 26 units. Modified Rules of Engagement would be employed with deadly force authorized to remove lethal threats from all enemies foreign and domestic.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Hüsker Dü
DA
Seems not to be a good idea, it is an idea, it just seems disruptive (to too many in too many ways), without congruity and with so many variables . . . amount of training, how recent that training was, threat recognition, etc.
Seems ripe for another, They didn't enter the building until it was too late" scenario. I'm not sure the National Guard is filled with ready, willing, able and discretionary enough individuals? We always had what we referred to as "Narc's" that patrolled the high school I attended, they were "Teacher's Aides", college students who always tried to keep me from leaving school to go surf, but even though unarmed, manned with cell phones at least they could sound the alarm. Not a great idea either, but again, an idea.
